Foxy wrote: "I lived and worked in the
United States for close to ten years. My children were born
there. I am familiar with the country's Institutions of Learning
and its reputable news sources."

Let me remind all that this same Foxy, so very familiar with the US and its institutions, was forced to admit not so long ago that she completely misunderstood how the electoral college worked. Of coarse, having learned that she was wrong about it didn't change her conclusions about the electoral college but then...well it is Foxy.

Foxy wrote: However you seem to brush
aside what you don't want to hear as "fake news,"".

Well despite putting the words "fake news" in quotes, I didn't use those words. There is no fake news, just wrong interpretations.

Foxy wrote: " When in fact there's plenty of evidence."

And yet you haven't been able to show ANY such evidence. Come on Foxy, show us one piece of eviddence that those who entered the Capitol building did so to overthrow democracy. Remember, assertion isn't evidence.

Foxy wrote: I find it beyond belief that you support him."

Yes. I get it. It reflects your lack of understanding about what MAGA and America First means for ordinary USians.

SR whined "It was your very link which differentiated between sex, age and ethnicity at the top three in their matrix of results."

There's a world of difference between the poll noting the views of the various groups and your attempts to discredit the majority view based upon the minority view of the various races. You won't understand it, but there is a world of difference.

Your definition of insurrection is so wide as to be effectively useless. If applied then every BLM riot was an insurrection. The Seattle CHOP affair was an insurrection. Every act of civil disobedience is an insurrection.

But of coarse you are wrong. The dictionary definition ISN'T the legal definition. No one, NO ONE has yet been found guilty of insurrection. I'll leave you to ponder why.

" you are now indicating he wouldn't get a fair trial."

There remains a chance he'll be charged in Washington DC. If so, he won't ger a fair trial. It'll then get appealed to a higher, non-DC court, and be laughed out of court. (Think Pell).

This whole thing is just a witch-hunt.
The way they went after Roger Stone, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon shows that Domocrats want to use lawfare against Trumps associates, even if they weren't involved in January 6.
They just want to find a way to keep Trump from running in 2024.
They will soon all get a taste of their own when Republicans win back the House and Senate in November and Trump will probably prosecute all of them if he gets back in in 2024.
I suspect a few may retire from politics by then.

Capital Hill belongs to the citizens not the politicians anyway, - and Democrats had provocateurs egging on the protesters and security let them in.
Also Democrats are known for electoral fraud, dead people voting and immigrants voting and others being bussed around to vote multiple times.
The only person harmed was one of the protestors US Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit who was shot by security.
Others died of natural causes and some police committed suicide sometime afterwards which is kind of suss.
http://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html

Biden has tested positive for Covid again, no doubt it's a Paxlovid rebound case.
The Paxlovid anti-viral only seems work for a few days helping to get a negative test result then you test positive again, but are then mostly asymptomatic.
- That means you're positive again and spreading the virus to others unknowingly because you aren't showing symptoms.
- Seems like it's a great cash cow / pyramid scheme to sell big pharmas Covid snake-oil.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-president-joe-biden-tests-positive-for-covid-19-again-says-white-house-20220731-p5b5yc.html

From the great Scott Adams....

"According to CNN, America is the sort of country in which citizens will bring loaded firearms to any sort of occasion except for attempted overthrows of their own government."

They're quite happy to supply and bring the guns to overthrow other countries governments.
They'll even create and forment the civil unrest in the first instance when it suits them.
If their country was hypothetically overthrown by the people for being a tyrannical government,
- then those people already have a right under the constitution to do so,
- and America would only be getting back what it does to others;

- So who even cares -

Dear mhaze,

You deflected with:

“There's a world of difference between the poll noting the views of the various groups and your attempts to discredit the majority view based upon the minority view of the various races. You won't understand it, but there is a world of difference.”

Pigs arse.

Firstly your link is 10 bloody months out of date. Pretty typical fare from you.

Here is a more recent one:

“A majority (57%) said Trump is to blame a great deal or a good amount for the Capitol riot, including 92% of Democrats and 57% of independents, but just 18% of Republicans. The 57% overall figure is up slightly — and within the 4.1 percentage-point margin of error — from last December (53%).”
http://www.npr.org/2022/07/21/1112546450/a-majority-thinks-trump-is-to-blame-for-jan-6-but-wont-face-charges-poll-finds

Secondly in your poll 68% of the respondents were white while they only make up less than 58% of the American population.

To the definition of insurrection. The US Federal code states:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

The history of the Insurrection Act of 1807 is instructive too:

“The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout American history. In the 19th century, it was invoked during conflicts with Native Americans. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was invoked during labor conflicts. Later in the 20th century, it was used to enforce federally mandated desegregation,[11] with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoking the Act in opposition to the affected states' political leaders to enforce court-ordered desegregation.”
Wikipedia.

Cont..